Garland v. New England

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
George C. Garland
v. Civil No. 17-cv-171-JD
New England
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
George C. Garland, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a motion entitled “Motion to Unseal Files
1972-42-GeorgeCGarland-JV-01” (Doc. No. 7), alleging facts that
clarify the claims asserted in the original complaint (Doc. No.
1) in this matter. On October 16, 2017, this court conducted a
preliminary review of Garland’s initial complaint (Doc. No. 1),
and issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5) (“October 16
R&R”) recommending that this matter be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(1). The court, applying the
same standard applied in the October 16 R&R, now addresses the
factual assertions in Document No. 7, in addition to the facts
asserted in the original complaint.
Discussion
The October 16 R&R (Doc. No. 5) recommended that this
action, naming “New England” as a defendant, be dismissed as
factually frivolous, and/or for failure to state a claim upon
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 8 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 3

2
which relief can be granted. In Document No. 7, Garland asserts
additional facts, which indicate that he intended to name
Concord Hospital and Camp Fatima as defendants in this case, and
that Garland believes he was the victim of criminal conduct that
occurred while he was at Camp Fatima.
Liberally construed, neither Document No. 1 nor Document
No. 7 contains factual assertions sufficient to assert a claim
for relief under federal law or to otherwise invoke the federal
question jurisdiction of this court. Further, there is no basis
for the court to exercise its diversity jurisdiction in this
matter, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the parties in this case are
not of diverse citizenship.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the case should be dismissed,
without prejudice to Garland’s ability to assert claims against
Concord Hospital or Camp Fatima under state law, in any state
court with jurisdiction over such claims. Any objections to the
October 16 R&R, or this Supplemental Report and Recommendation
must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen day period may be
extended upon motion. Failure to file objections within the
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 8 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 3

3
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
____________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
November 1, 2017
cc: George C. Garland, pro se
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 8 Filed 11/01/17 Page 3 of 3